Tuesday, June 28, 2011

I am obviously quaking in my boots at the imminent return and vengeance of Carl, who will return and find my works lacking and smite me and blah blah blah whatever fuck you.

Anyway, comic 917! This one quite obviously started with Randy coming up with the acrostonym* in question. It don't think it reads the way it's intended to, but I'm not here to take issue with this.

I'm here to take issue with the GOOMH-bait that is so obvious that even one of the fanboys in the previous comment thread noted it:

"Well _I've_ never heard of that guy, because I'm not XKChttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifD's target audience, therefore Randall is just being obscure again, GOOMH-baiting the nerds and trying to make them feel important about themselves for knowing who that is. Or he has a crush on one more obscure scientist, I can't decide. Maybe both. Also, porn star daughter Megan nipples har har!"

This was intended to invalidate the criticism by preemptively making it, of course, but the fact of the matter is, this is yet another comic where the entire humor relies on nerds recognizing the topic in question and then saying "lololol I know who that is too." It's exceptionally sad that the pandering is so bad that one of Randy's loyal fanboys is preemptively trying to head off criticism of it. (The irony here, of course, is that Douglas Hofstadter isn't really Randy's type of person--but props for finding someone who has an interest in self-reference, though! My guess is he went to the Wiki page on "self-reference" and noticed a name in the Examples section, and said "I guess he'll do.")http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifWhat really stands out here to me, though, is that this marks at least the third time he's put words in the mouth of a famous person. You have Zombie Feynman, Zombie Marie Curie, and now Douglas Hofstadter. (Let me know if I've forgotten any.) While this one lacks the preachiness of the first two, it does share the commonality that Randy is trying to improve his words by making it sound like they are not his.

It's not as bad as it's been before, but this isn't a coincidence. I think this is a sign that Randy is trying to write character humor. I've been noticing it lately: you have a strip featuring Black Hat guy where he doesn't do anything Black Hat Guy-esque--the only way we can tell he might be sarcastic is because he's Black Hat Guy. And then you have a strip with Beret Guy where he is pretty much entirely a passive character, and maybe if anyone could figure out what his personality is supposed to be it would be funnier?

Of course, this being XKCD, Randy actually pulling off character humor is about as likely as an Internet Atheist acknowledging that he's pretty much directly comparable in every way to your garden variety fundie, but these strips all give me this feeling, like he wishes that he were capable of writing in a rich, sustaining universe, where characters are dynamic and interesting and he isn't just writing author inserts and strawmen shouting into the void.

"This was intended to invalidate the criticism by preemptively making it"

In rhetoric this is occupatio, exemplified in the agora of acuity that is 4chan by use of the phrase "in b4". In a related move, Randall claims terra nullius on the graves of every dead or dying academic of note.

Lololol, Rob pulls out his once-monthly actual attempt to write a proper review, while lacing it with passages that are supposed to reflect indifference, so that if anyone accuses him of being a shit writer he can say 'I don't care anyway, I wasn't even trying'.

Anticipation has a habit to set you upFor disappointment in evening entertainment butTonight there’ll be some loveTonight there'll be a ruckus yeah, regardless of what's gone before

I want to see all of the things that we've already seenThe lairy girls hung out the window of the limousineAnd of course its fancy dressAnd they're all looking quite full onIn bunny ears and devil horns and how

Anticipation has a habit to set you upFor disappointment in evening entertainment butTonight there’ll be some loveTonight there'll be a ruckus yeah, regardless of what's gone before

I want to see all of the things that we've already seenI want to see you take the jackpot out the fruit machineAnd put it all back inYou've got to understand it you can never beat the bandit, no

And she won't be surprised and she won't be shockedWhen she's pressed the star after she's pressed unlockAnd there's verse and chapter sat in her inboxAnd all that it says is that you've drank a lot

You should bear that in mind tonightbear that in mind, yeah you shouldbear that in mind tonightBear that in mindYou can pour your heart out but her reasoning will blockAll you send her after nine o'clock

Anticipation has a habit to set you upFor disappointment in evening entertainment butTonight there’ll be some loveTonight there'll be a ruckus yeah, regardless of what's gone before

And she won’t be surprised and she won't be shockedWhen she’s pressed the star after she's pressed unlockAnd there’s verse and chapter sat in her inboxAnd all that it says is that you've drank a lot

You should bear that in mind tonightbear that in mind, yeah you shouldbear that in mind tonightBear that in mind

You can pour your heart out around 3 o clockWhen the 2 for 1's undone the writers block

It's a little bit depressing that Randall read GEB and all he got from it was "self-reference." I guess he ignored all the psychology, philosophy, and music, or even the more nuanced mathematics?

As a sidenote, Hofstadter did a (not especially good) translation of Eugene Onegin; he also wrote extensively about Nabokov's (which was honestly even worse) in the foreword, but Randy thinks literary criticism is drivel so I guess he didn't read any of that.

I'm not saying this is an especially good comic, but it struck as especially obviously honest. I think this isn't really Randall being obscure. Of course, reasonable people can agree to disagree about this in the case of comic #917. But the point is, I feel that today it's impossible for Randall to say anything that's not part of the broadest pop culture without being called intentionally obscure here and GOOMH-baiting.

(Likewise, it's impossible for him to say anything that won't provoke mentions of Megan's nipples and porn star daughter. If his work improved 400% overnight, this shit still wouldn't stop.)

Randall is a computer and math geek, and it's fair to occasionally give him the benefit of the doubt that he might be genuinely interested in some geeky stuff and in sharing geek jokes with other geeks, as opposed to being some big phony all the time who just sucks up to geeks so they'd buy his posters.

Computer and mathematics geeks _adore_ Hofstadter, and Randall is one of them. The probability that he really just found out about Hofstadter on Wikipedia is negligible. The very fact that Rob suggested that shows that he just doesn't know the math/CS geek subculture and just how famous Hofstadter is among them. Which is fine! I don't know a bunch of other subcultures I'm not in. But Rob automatically assumes that because Hofstadter is obscure to him, he must be obscure to Randall too, because god forbid Randall would have actual interests or know something Rob doesn't.

I tried to pre-empt the review with this sentiment: "This is _obviously_ not being obscure and GOOMH-baiting. This is Randall being true to his history as a geek webcomic writer, a loving (if clumsy) homage to a hero, that he knows all of his old core readers will understand.""Aaaaand still! Still, even this will be described in those same old terms, because anything non-mainstream Randall could do would be described that way. Trek joke? GOOMH! Math joke? Obscure! Unix joke? Obscure and GOOMH!"

You could take something similar as my standing prediction of all future reviews, based on the past: no matter what Randall does, there will be Megan nipples in the review, or something. No matter what geeky topic he touches, it will be only because he's sucking up to geeks. Look at it this way: I don't know what xkcd will post tomorrow, but I know what xkcdsucks will post. That tells me something about the latter.

Is autism the only disorder where half the Internet population self-diagnoses and then considers that it makes them better than everyone else? What is the appeal of the condition? It's not like self-diagnosed sufferers even display the symptoms of autism - they just act like jackasses then use it as an excuse.

Wernher: it's sort of a weird geek pride thing. Autism makes you bad at things geeks don't think are important anyway, while (sometimes) making them good at the things they do care about. It's a twofold thing: they both have an excuse not to have any charisma or ability to read nonverbal cues and bragging rights about having an awesome computer brain.

@10:49 "Computer and mathematics geeks _adore_ Hofstadter, and Randall is one of them."

Wrong on both counts.

(1) Hofstadter's one of those strange attractors of wannabes, the sort who are turned on by "look! it's beautiful! no, no, it's ok to be overwhelmed by the detail and the hard work - just - check out the beauty of it all!" He's not been an interesting mathematician for a long while, and he leaves a little of the same taste you get in your mouth after listening to one of Dwakins' tirades;

(2) Randall has shown nothing to demonstrate more than a superficial understanding of either computing or mathematics. I'm a mathematics postgraduate and am confident that my ability in the subject would leave Randall in the dirt, but I am far from being a mathematics geek.

It is a scientifically proven fact that if you end your responses with a jaded, yet vague prediction of the other person's response, you automatically win the argument. Also, your penis and/or breasts become 400% bigger.

Pulitzer Prize-winning author Douglas Hofstadter is not obscure. For the record.---

"Pulitzer Prize-winning author Douglas A. Blackmon is not obscure. For the record.""Pulitzer Prize-winning author Caroline Elkins is not obscure. For the record.""Pulitzer Prize-winning author Herbert P. Bix is not obscure. For the record."

@10:49 - I don't think you understand goomhbaiting. It has nothing to do with the obscurity of a topic (nowhere have i called Hofstadter obscure--that's all you, buddy) and everything to do with nerds finding a topic exciting. name-dropping Firefly is goomhbaiting, and that's not obscure. to be goomh-bait it merely needs to be a joke where the humor lies pretty much entirely in the reference. rather than writing something funny, he is writing something that he knows much of his audience will be familiar with. if said in the right tone, fanboys will eat it up for no other reason than that they get the reference.

(you might note, by the way, if you bothered to read, that the only mention of lactation or porn star daughters in the post is, in fact, a quote--by you, in fact! I really don't make them much anymore. the most recent mention of either was about three weeks ago. your criticisms of the blog would be on a lot more solid ground if they actually described the blog.)

it's tempting to go into the various other ways in which you're wrong, but it's pretty clear you live in a fantasy world, and frankly you're not worth that much effort.

the best school of internet arguing is the one where you intentionally say stupid shit that you know people will call you out on, and then predict that they will call you out on it. because once you have predicted something it makes you smart and anyone who behaves according to your prediction dumb

Ann beat me to it. Randall mentions Hofstadter in comic #555 so he didn't just look for a name that fit his acronym. Also, even by itself, the phrase "I'm So Meta, Even This Acronym" would make me laugh.

Wow, it's almost as if whatever Rob says, my future answer is always going to be the same? The self-reference is killing me!

Rob, the fact remains that you will never give him a break. There is no reason whatsoever to doubt that Randall has actually read Hofstadter. He is actually exactly the kind of author Randall would seem to read, and yes, if you want it that way, feel smug about reading.

The joke, good or bad, is actually about something from Hofstadter's writing, which _you_ don't know because you haven't read him (and that's fine) but to me it shows at least Randall knows what Hofstadter writes.

But you are just married to the idea that he's always just sucking up to readers by finding stuff they'll recognize on Wikipedia. There's no way Randall would actually be interested in something.

i've given randy a break plenty of times. again: you should probably actually read the blog if you're going to whine about how i'm soooo unfair to randy because you apparently think that i have never heard of or read hofstadter and you are incapable of understanding the difference between making a reference which helps a joke and making a reference which is the joke.

Also, I don't think Randall is any more than superficially interested in Hofstadter: he has heard of him; he has perhaps read some stuff by him; he references him in conversation to sound smart; he goes back to drawing stick figures. But he hasn't looked at anything but his most popular/populist publications and he certainly hasn't written about him beyond goomh-bait references. IOW, he hasn't really thought about what the man has to say.

This is merely a specific case of the general fact that Randall isn't any more than superficially interested in anything. He is just like the swathe of people on the Internet who muddle along through life pretending to be way smarter and more insightful than they really are. These people have contributed and will contribute nothing of note. They're obnoxious and aggressive, though some may internalise their feelings and end up emo.

(TBH, I could see Randy losing it on a lover and then using a Hans Reiser-style justification for his general behaviour while what he's really saying is, "This is why it's OK to murder women." Beneath his veneer of female-worship lies a thoroughly patronising chauvinist. In fact, the only way we might stop Randy from writing comics is to send a sacrificial lamb then alert the authorities of the inevitable. I suggest ALTF.)

captcha: nesseat. And this is why you'll never find a Nessie in the zoo.

Latest comic is of the Scribblenauts / Minecraft variety of 'hey, guess what I just found?' comics. They're among my least favourite xkcd strips; all goomhrbait and pandering, no comedy or attempts at insight.

"....I am obviously quaking in my boots at the imminent return and vengeance of Carl...."

You need not fear through tremulous agitation the threatening return of the prodigal. He be a spent force - a gin-soaked popinjay whose time has passed.

"What though the radiance which was once so bright Be now for ever taken from my sight, Though nothing can bring back the hour Of splendour in the grass, of glory in the flower, We will grieve not, rather find Strength in what remains behind;...."

Carl himself realises what he has lost through the passage of time, and his return here sounds hollow and forced, as though he were trying to convince himself that all is not gone. Try as he might, a touch of nostalgia about the glory that was, of the splendours of the past, will creep in. The grass remains splendid, but the keen-eyed and now chastened young man who had felt it earlier is no more.

Google is taking on Facebook again via a beta product launch that's invite only? And I'm supposed to be excited about this? Because that worked out so well last time. Facebook only has 750 million users, but Orkut has Brazilians.

Ann Apolis, conversely, sports an 'Argentine', rather than a Brazilian, for purely political reasons. That and after mistaking Maradona's dressing room for Madonna's he now shags sheep in the Malvinas Isles while collecting Exocet parts for fun and profit.He also believes the 'Hand of God' goal was just that.

Quoth Randall: In October my fiancée was diagnosed with stage III breast cancer. It’s rare for young women to get breast cancer, and she’s otherwise healthy and has no family history, so it was a real bolt from the blue."

Let me be the first to say it: if you didn't try to alter nature to force your fiancee to lactate then she wouldn't have cancer. You only have yourself to blame.

Hey, I've just found out that 'Randall Munroe' is an anagram of 'Man all-rounder'. It get's better, 'Rob Mason' is an anagram of 'Rambo son'. And Gamer_2k4's real name is an anagram of 'Bash dreary jaw'. Sorry, Gamer.

I just wasted 10 minutes researching Foonetic.As much as I live to make Anonymous cunts happy, I cannot join.I would never join a 'network' that would accept the likes of me. Besides, the place appears to be riddled with spotty, unlettered adolescents.

Dolphins will sometimes capture and kill baby porpoises. Scientists were perplexed by this behavior, as it seemed to serve no purpose. Eventually they discovered that its purpose was practice for capturing and killing baby dolphins.

One day, I shall bring children into the world; and they shall inherent ... shitty reviews on a comic that may or may not be obscure in the next few years, that will matter little regardless, and people who comment on said review, including myself. What a wonderful world they shall have.

What the hell is this?

Welcome. This is a website called XKCD SUCKS which is about the webcomic xkcd and why we think it sucks. My name is Carl and I used to write about it all the time, then I stopped because I went insane, and now other people write about it all the time. I forget their names. The posts still seem to be coming regularly, but many of the structural elements - like all the stuff in this lefthand pane - are a bit outdated. What can I say? Insane, etc.

I started this site because it had been clear to me for a while that xkcd is no longer a great webcomic (though it once was). Alas, many of its fans are too caught up in the faux-nerd culture that xkcd is a part of, and can't bring themselves to admit that the comic, at this point, is terrible. While I still like a new comic on occasion, I feel that more and more of them need the Iron Finger of Mockery knowingly pointed at them. This used to be called "XKCD: Overrated", but then it fell from just being overrated to being just horrible. Thus, xkcd sucks.

Here is a comic about me that Ann made. It is my favorite thing in the world.

Frequently Asked Questions

Divided into two convenient categories, based on whether you think this website

Rob's Rants

When he's not flipping a shit over prescriptivist and descriptivist uses of language, xkcdsucks' very own Rob likes writing long blocks of text about specific subjects. Here are some of his excellent refutations of common responses to this site. Think of them as a sort of in-depth FAQ, for people inclined to disagree with this site.